Robert Lacey: ‘The world is a better place for what Prince Harry has done’

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge try land yachting in St Andrews

As always, I’ve been keeping my eye on People Magazine’s royal coverage. People Mag seems convinced that they can play all sides – they can be a sympathetic, go-to resource for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and they can help with any embiggening campaigns needed for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. People seems to love the “Princess Kate” sugar, but People Mag often does softer, kinder coverage of Meghan and Harry too. I wonder how that’s playing at Kensington Palace, which has put a lot of effort into selling the Keens to American audiences. Speaking of, I find it interesting that People put Harry on this week’s cover – they’re highlighting The Me You Can’t See, the AppleTV series executive-produced by Harry and Oprah. The magazine also gets quotes from royal commentators and insiders about how the Windsors are big mad about everything Harry has said.

Prince Harry is opening up about his mental health like never before. Harry, 36, appeared in the Apple TV+ five-part docuseries called The Me You Can’t See that he co-created with Oprah Winfrey, where he openly talks about his upbringing in the royal family, how he takes after his late mother Princess Diana, how he’s changed as a person since becoming a father with wife Meghan Markle and how much he’s grown stronger mentally after years of therapy.

“The world is a better place for what Harry has done,” royal historian Robert Lacey tells PEOPLE in this week’s issue. “But this is another blow for the British crown and royal family.”

British journalist and mental health advocate Bryony Gordon adds that Harry is undertaking “an important form of duty” by breaking the shame barrier around mental illness. “This is a man who, at the age of 12, was sent out to walk behind his mother’s coffin and console the masses outside Kensington Palace,” she says. “I just don’t understand why we’re now angry with him that that might have affected him.”

Although one royal insider says for Harry “to continue to target your family leaves little room for reconciliation,” he is determined to speak out about the importance of mental well-being.

“It’s my responsibility,” Harry says, “my duty, to break that cycle.”

[From People]

Robert Lacey has been a shady B this whole time! His book, The Battle of Brothers, really contributed to the narrative that William has always been an angry little dictator who screams and throws tantrums to get what he wants. And at least Lacey admits the obvious, which is that the more Harry speaks, the worse it is for the Windsors. You would be surprised how many royal commentators disagree. They almost get hysterical about it, claiming that the more Harry speaks, the more British people support the monarchy. Yeah. And none of these people – Harry or the Windsors – care that much about reconciliation. They think they’re holding “reconciliation” over Harry’s head because they can’t compute that he doesn’t give a sh-t.

Note by Celebitchy: Sign up for our mailing list and get the top 8 stories from Battle of The Brothers! I only send one email a day on weekdays after lunch.

Prince Harry hosts the draw for the Rugby League World Cup 2021

Cover courtesy of People, additional photos courtesy of AppleTV and Avalon Red.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

69 Responses to “Robert Lacey: ‘The world is a better place for what Prince Harry has done’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Snazzy says:

    People magazine can’t all out attack Harry now that he’s aligned with Oprah, they would never go against the one true queen.

    • Nivz says:

      Ooooh. That’s an explanation I can buy.

    • Cleo says:

      The RF could have done the math back when Gayle King threw Meghan’s baby shower. But they decided to go up against sports royalty (Serena), Hollywood royalty (Amal), and Oprah (royalty, period).

      • Xoxo says:

        Gayle King didn’t throw Meghan’s baby shower, she was a guest. Meghan friends from college Lindsey Roth and Serena Williams threw the shower.

      • harperc says:

        The Brit media don’t understand that Oprah is The Queen. I’ve seen her called a tabloid reporter by rota, which made me cackle.

        You can make a pretty good argument that Oprah has already “beaten” TQ. There is a pretty decent line from Oprah in the 80s,which made it acceptable for normal people to share their feelings, good and bad, in public, to Diana’s death, with the Brits acting “like Americans” worth public grief and forcing the queen to un – stiffen the upper lip.

    • Becks1 says:

      Exactly. This is actually a win-win for People with this cover – they get to talk about the royal family in general, prince harry in particular, family drama, and Oprah, all in one article.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      @Snazzy, not if they’re smart they won’t! And if they have any other smarts, they should reduce the W & K puff pieces. This is the first time in years I’ll buy a People magazine. Hopefully, Robert Lacey will continue to lean away from the dark side.

      I still laugh(yet am annoyed) when BM writers refer to Oprah as a “chat show host”. She’s a media mogul while they’re writing schlock.

  2. (The OG) Jan90067 says:

    I’m SHOCKED that one of them had a *decent* word to say about Harry. But glad to hear that one lone voice speaking out (on the cover no less). Cue the incandescence and “mournful” hurt across the pond in 5-4-3-2-……

    • Lizzie says:

      IIRC this was the man who said Meghan was the only self made millionaire in the rf back when he was promoting the book.

      • Yvette says:

        @Lizzie … He said it in the book as well in the section where he discussed how the Royal Family had made a terrible mistake in not welcoming Meghan and what she could bring to the Monarchy. But he’ll continue to think Meghan made Cate cry until someone in the Royal Family says otherwise.

        Surprisingly, he spent a huge chunk of the book discussing William’s terrible rages, Carole Middleton’s uppity manners and determination to climb out of lower middleclass life to a top tier, top drawer upper middleclass life, and how Cate had definitely waged a campaign to snag William.

        Perhaps it’s just me, but Lacey seemed to infer that had William been better at picking up and/or dating other young women during their breaks–particularly daughters of Baron’s, Duke’s, and Earl’s–he wouldn’t have settled for Cate. Someone please let me know if you think I was just projecting or reading more than was actually written in the book.

        It was in this book where I read how horrified Camilla was when William stopped by to rage in Charles’s face (right in front of her) about how he (Charles) wasn’t doing some part of his job properly. And it was in this book where Lacey described Cate’s shameless stroll down the catwalk in her see-through slip-dress, showing off her black undies and toned body to an audience of one – William, who of course was seated in the center front row. He even has a picture in the photo section. She does look great, but this is why I don’t buy the ‘shy Cate’ act.

  3. Lenni says:

    I have so much respect for H&M

  4. BayTampaBay says:

    IMPO, Robert Lacey’s book, Battle of Brothers, was more damaging to Bill Cambridge than Harry.

    • Nivz says:

      Yes! I commented below in similar vein before these comments showed up for me.

    • Cecilia says:

      Did you read it? I remember that celebitchy covered a few pages last year but I honestly nearly forgot what was talked about. He did say that kate stalked william right? And that william is always angry?

      • Sofia says:

        I didn’t read it and someone who did can chime in but apparently it wasn’t really flattering towards the Middletons. There’s also something about Camilla (think a commenter called it “weird” or something like that). No idea about the rest beyond the excerpts.

      • Becks1 says:

        I read it, it was not flattering to William, my issues with the Harry coverage were that he was relying a lot on tabloids. Someone on here said that they had heard through the publishing grapevine that a LOT got cut from it and Lacey was ticked (I think NotSoSimpleTaylor?)

        I don’t think it made Harry look great, but I remember definitely thinking that William came off poorly, but with excuses. But the excuses seemed tired, IDK. Like it would be “William had a temper tantrum and threw a lamp and broke a priceless vase, but it was hard for him bc someone teased him about his mother” or something. (that’s just a made up example.) Like I got the vibe that Lacey had a LOT he wanted to say about William but had to put in all these caveats.

        And it definitely was not flattering towards the Middletons, it reminded the reader, in case one had forgotten, about Kate’s stalking of William, etc.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        BayTampaBay & Becks1, I agree that the book was telling when it came to William–and not in a good way. It seems that Robert Lacey had the same problem as Omid Scobie, because both of them had to take out parts of their book for legal reasons before publishing. I can’t wait until these people retire and decide to write what they know. I don’t know anything about Robert Lacey, but I get the feeling that he might not agree with the agenda of the media and RR’s. He’s trying to keep it balanced?

    • Myra says:

      I do agree with that sentiment. I have read neither Finding Freedom nor Battle of the Brothers, but from the coverage, I have the impression that the latter was more damaging to William.

    • Sid says:

      Peter Hunt has also been surprisingly critical of William and the BRF over on Twitter. It is interesting that the current/ former royal reporters who have a little bit of “gravitas” (as much as you can in that field) as opposed to just being the typical gossipmongers seem to be avoiding being completely one-sided in all this. It makes me think that something really is up with William.

      • ABritGuest says:

        The royal experts/historians etc like Lacey are usually less obviously bigoted when talking to US press unless it’s Fox News etc. They know how to tone it down compared to their comments to the British media. Shows it’s all just pantomime really.

        Peter Hunt has been interesting. He talked about royals losing superstars when Sussexit was announced, around the bullying& blood earring allegations said briefing wouldn’t happen without William’s approval and has been hammering on Andrew not cooperating with the FBI. He also pointed out that Bill would need to liaise with editors if he wanted to revise the narrative around Diana’s interview. Quite refreshing

      • Jais says:

        I do like checking Peter Hunt’s twitter. He’s pretty matter of fact and does not have that tone of obsequiousness that so many royal reporters have.

      • Becks1 says:

        It’s weird that we find Peter Hunt so refreshing – he’s just being more objective than most (I like him too on twitter.) He’s not afraid to call out the royals for being petty, he’s not bowing down to anyone on either side – he just sees the situation for what it is and isn’t afraid to say that. It’s almost like he’s an actual reporter who has some insider knowledge. Like I said its weird that we’re like “ohhhh he’s impartial” and that’s something different.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        I remember after the Oprah interview after the brf publicized their response. He made a comment about being too little too late and kept the power with H&M. He doesn’t say much, but what he says is always thoughtful. I like to read his tweets.

      • Anance says:

        ” It makes me think that something really is up with William.”

        @Sid Of course, William is up to no good.

        William spent the weekend in Scotland, and his wife didn’t show up until Monday. What does that tell you?

    • Elsavita Williams says:

      I agree. I was surprised to learn that the brother who brags about having Harry’s back is the one and same who introduced him to drugs and alcohol at the tender age of 14 when he threw wild parties at Highgrove.

  5. Nivz says:

    Lacey has been one of the “experts” with the most realistic coverage of the situation. I know that’s not saying much, but he has addressed W’s actions and anger issues more than others have dared. And he spoke out even more during an interview promoting his book than in the book, possibly for legal reasons.

    The quote from Lacey above sounds like a ringing endorsement of the Sussexes by his standards. Royal stuff is his bread and butter so he can’t go all Republican. That’s my pre morning coffee take on the article above.

    • Becks1 says:

      Yeah, he’s saying what we all have known – this is a very important step for Harry, and he’s making a difference, but the royal family is going to be big mad about it. That’s their problem though.

    • molly says:

      “This is a man who, at the age of 12, was sent out to walk behind his mother’s coffin and console the masses outside Kensington Palace,” she says. “I just don’t understand why we’re now angry with him that that might have affected him.”

      Once more for the people in the back!

      • KT says:

        Guilt.

        Those boys were used as human shields by the The Firm. But what they were shielding the Royal Family FROM was totally unreasonable public anger and mass hysteria.
        If half the country hadn’t lost their minds and demanded a public display of private grief, they wouldn’t have been out there.

        Clearly that wouldn’t have made Charles a better father or got the boys some actual grief counselling, so the public are not totally to blame, but still, plenty of people even at the time were uncomfortable with the way the feelings of total strangers dictated the way the most-closely-bereaved had to behave.

  6. Cecilia says:

    The windsors need to get it into their skulls that there won’t be a “reconciliation” until they publicly apologize to meghan and start condemning the press. And the type of reconciliation they have in their heads looks completely different to the type of reconciliation harry has in his head, i feel like.

    And its not just bad for the windsors whenever harry speaks out, its also bad for the royal rota and thats why they are so upset. Like harry said, when they don’t control the narrative anymore they get scared. Because then the truth will come out

    • Eurydice says:

      Yeah, I don’t think there’s a card for “We’re sorry we tried to kill your wife and child.”

    • Carmen-JamRock says:

      Yeah…..the “reconciliation” narrative is the new “one year review” narrative. They desperately neeeeeeed to seem justified in their obssession with the Montecito Royals.
      LOL

  7. BothSidesNow says:

    Please, anything coming from any publication that isn’t in bed with the RF is going to talk trash about Harry and Meghan. Just like that one blurb in People…
    Although one royal insider says for Harry “to continue to target your family leaves little room for reconciliation,” he is determined to speak out about the importance of mental well-being.
    I agree that Harry is not holding his breath for an apology and he has probably just let it go, since he knows what goes on behind the curtain. And the RF, Britain’s citizens and RR had better wake up because Harry will never return the the RF as long as Meghan, Archie and Little California Sunshine are all alive, and I would question if he would if they weren’t!! He’s happy!! Let him be!!

  8. Woke says:

    The whole argument of the royal experts that the more Harry talks the more the Brits endorse the monarchy only work while the queen is alive. After she’s gone that won’t be the same.
    And like one comment already said reconciliation means something different to both sides and none of the sides seem to want a middle ground so here we are.

    • Myjobistoprincess says:

      The way I’m feeling it – the RF isnt sure their reign is going to continue after the passing of the queen. All this Diana stirup, panorama interview, meghan/harry truth coming out, being a bad father, camilla his side chick, all of this will make him the most unpopular king ever. I mean, the kensingtons are testing the ideas of taking over after the queen if gone everyday with pieces like it should skip a generation, go directly to william, kate the great etc. I mean if the polls are so bad for Charles and Camilla, the firm will make him pass his crown to william if it means that the monarchy can survive: he will have to say that he is too old for it and he wants the young to have a real opportunity to change the world blah blah blah.

      • lanne says:

        The job of monarch isn’t a popularity contest, as much as the tabloids and perhaps the middletons want it to be. There’s no “giving the crown to William”. Charles is the heir, and if he’s alive he will be the next king. There’s no provision for “skipping” someone in line to the throne without outright murder.

      • Lizzie says:

        I thought another abdication was to be avoided at all costs, and this is why the queen will not retire.

  9. Sofia says:

    I’ve never been able to see what Lacey really thinks. It seems he says one thing in one interview then another, possibly contradicting what he said before in another interview. Idk if he secretly likes the Sussexes and can’t say because he doesn’t want any blowback from the establishment or if he’s both sides either genuinely or on purpose because he can then get the clicks from both the Cambridge and Sussex supporters depending on what he’s said. Or he can’t say certain things due to legal etc etc.

    • Brielle says:

      Yes he is both siding

    • Becks1 says:

      I think he’s more of a historian than a royal expert, so it makes sense that’s both siding, because he’s going to come at it from a different perspective, where he does want to know both sides.

      But I also think he genuinely likes the Sussexes and legal shuts him down sometimes, that’s why he was more revealing in the interviews around his book than his actual book.

      Remember he’s one of the ones who has been adamant that William and Harry need to reconcile and be on good terms when william is king.

      • Sofia says:

        I can totally see this, thanks @Becks1!

      • Brielle says:

        @Becks1 Did you see the part during the Sandrigham negotiations where he called Meghan Rachel Zane like her character in Suits? He didn’t really care about Meghan and he said Harry was angry and emotional and William was angry but rational…He also said that Cressida thought that Harry was damaged and self obsessed which he revealed us in the documentary

      • lanne says:

        Lacey speaks as a historian instead of as a royal propagandist. Him saying that Harry and William need to reconcile has little to do with the royal party line and much more to do with the actual viability of the monarchy as an institution. He knows Williams defects. He has written about Williams complete unsuitability to the throne as much as he’s legally able. When he says William needs Harry, I think he’s saying that William can’t function as a monarch without Harry’s mitigating influence. It’s clear from the royals panic over Harry’s departure that they have no idea how they will function as an institution without Harry. I said in another post that the Windsors have no long term planning ability, and this is proof. That they had no possible plan for Harry deciding he wants out, while basing their entire working model around Harry as their meal ticket, shows their incompetence. If Harry is really so necessary, then Harry should have been treated much better than he was, and his wife should have been welcomed with open arms. It’s the height of arrogance and stupidity to think they could belittle, demean, and mistreat Harry and his wife, and still think he would carry the weight of the institution on his back. They need him as a behind the scenes kingmaker for William, and treat him like boy who empties the piss pots.

        Lacey knows that Mr. Incandescent is not up to the job, and that cute kids and a Barbie doll wife can’t hide this fact forever. I think he’s pretty neutral on Harry and Meghan. He’s as blind to the macroagressions Meghan faced as any old White British dude would be, so he minimizes the hardships she has faced. He also knows, and has said, that she’s the smartest one in the room. He can’t quite see that her intelligence is why they hate her, and he probably thinks she should have “hid her smarts and smiled more” or some bullshit. But he has diagnosed the problems of the monarchy correctly. He knows what’s wrong with Cain.

      • Becks1 says:

        i didn’t say he was perfect, I said he comes at it from a different place than someone like Wootton. Also maybe Cressida did say that about Harry. And like I said, he was definitely more pro-Sussex in the interviews around his book than the actual book.

        ETA yes lanne, agree completely. That was my point in saying that he’s one of the ones saying William needs Harry. It’s not about “Harry must come back to us, we love him and only him!” as much as it’s about the viability of the institution. He doesn’t see the microaggressions against Meghan but he definitely sees the issues with William and knows a lot more than he can say.

      • Golly Gee says:

        “ It’s clear from the royals panic over Harry’s departure that they have no idea how they will function as an institution without Harry.”
        The dynamics have always included a scapegoat to take the heat off of the monarch/heir. As long as there is a scapegoat, they can deflect when they mess up. They have no experience in taking responsibility for themselves. They are panicking because they have lost their scapegoat Harry.

    • Demi says:

      I like Prof Kate Williams she is a historian & she gets invited to comment on Harry and Meghan she’s a Sussex supporter unlike the carnival if so royal experts it’s refreshing to hear her perspective coming from an actual scholar& historian who knows about Royal history.

  10. pix says:

    I’d be concerned about Harry’s mental health if he were to “reconcile” with the Royal Family. I watched the Oprah series and he seems like he’s done a lot of work and knows exactly who those people are and what they’ve done to him. He will never go back unless they drug, kidnap and brainwash him.

  11. Amy Bee says:

    Hmm, I’ll wait to hear what Lacey says to a British publication. The British press have a tendency to change their tune when they talk to American outlets. However Bryony Gordon said something I never thought about that the Palace sent Harry and William out to console the crowd after Diana’s death. That was incredibly cruel and damaging for them, especially Harry.

    • MsIam says:

      Robert Lacey is definitely two faced. I thought he was more academic, if that’s the right word, in his approach to the royals than the other trash bag writers but nah, he’s only slightly better than the rest of the Rota.

      • So_LacVert says:

        I agree. Lacey also had a lot of basic factual errors in his book which I would assume would be important to a “historian.”

      • Carmen-JamRock says:

        Youre exactly right. This is my take on Lacey too. ‘Historian’ my ass. Theres nothing esoteric or reverent abt being an historian……..we’ve all seen how some of the formerly most revered history books have been rubbished in the light of the same stories being told from the pt of view of those whose voices & lived experiences…..whose stories, had been ignored in said history bks.
        In his earlier comments abt M, Lacey showed that, as Lanne said: “He’s as blind to the macroaggressions Meghan faced as any old White British dude would be, so he minimizes the hardships she has faced.”
        And, as far as I’m concerned, by doing so he’s forfeited any pretense at being a credible chronicler of these events.

  12. MsIam says:

    He basically says his family either actively helped or stood by while his wife was suffering. How do you reconcile that? These Rota ratchets are delusional to think that there is going to be a reconciliation, other than polite conversation at the odd funeral or major family event. I’m thinking that would be Charles’ coronation. I honestly think that William would tell him to stay away from his lest Harry “overshadow”.

    • booboocita says:

      Keeping in mind everything Harry’s said about his grandmother and how he feels about her, I’ve no doubt that he’ll come back for the Queen’s funeral. Whether Meghan accompanies him is another matter entirely. But I don’t believe for one minute that he’ll show up for his dad’s coronation. What for? The opportunity to show support for and congratulate a man who treated him and his wife abominably and pulled their protection from them?

      And Chucky won’t want Harry pulling attention from him on his special day, and Bullyam won’t want competition for the spotlight, either. What’s more, better believe that the family will show up in costume — er, uniforms — for the event. An invitation to the coronation would raise all of the questions that were raised at Philip’s funeral again. And I can’t see Chucky forgoing the opportunity to play dress-up. So no uniform for Harry, and probably a seat in the furthest row of Westminster Abbey possible, and that’s if he were to be invited. I truly believe that Harry is well aware of all the issues that would be raised, should he attend his father’s coronation, and that he’s better off avoiding the whole sordid mess.

  13. Miranda says:

    Yes. Yes, he is absolutely making the world a better place, and that deserves far more attention than Harry’s family issues. This bitter, petty narrative being pushed that he’s crazy and spiteful and hellbent on destroying the monarchy and making his nana cry…it’s disgusting, and they need to STFU. This is a man who served his country, both in the military and as a very hard-working royal. Who lost his mother in the most tragic and public way possible and was forced to shoulder the whole world’s outpouring of grief (much of which I suspect was performative, or else they’d have more compassion for Harry now) AS A CHILD. He’s helping to end the stigma of mental health problems by admitting his own struggles. And most importantly, he is a wonderful husband and father who is breaking the cycle of poor parenting and emotional neglect. Have some f–king respect.

  14. Susan says:

    Are Harry’s eyes always that blue? Yes this is a shallow comment but tbh I never look closely at the pics of the guys…always the girls. He got Diana’s blue eyes. Don’t know why I never noticed that. Now that I think about it I’ve never noticed Charles’ eyes. Hm.

    • HeatherC says:

      I have eyes almost the same shade as Harry (and Diana) as does my son. Depending on how the light hits our faces, and even what we’re wearing/what the background is, our eyes can look vividly blue. I, like Diana in her time, also wear eye make up at times to make the blue stand out as well.

  15. ABritGuest says:

    If the truth is a blow to the royal family why can’t they do like other orgs and at least say they are listening & learning& I don’t know try to actually evolve?

    Every time I hear the royal family is angry about Harry airing dirty laundry rather about the claimed actions or sad that Harry feels this way- just shows they just care about their image rather than their kin. So just adds more weight to what he’s said about neglect, being in bed with the rota etc. Not smart.

    • lanne says:

      They would rather have Meghan dead than in treatment due to “how things would look.” There’s no reconciling with that. That attitude is completely antithetical to the entire idea of supporting mental health.

      I suggest that Willnot and Cannot find a different cause to pretend to care about.

    • Golly Gee says:

      I just noted above that they have lots of experience with scapegoating. They have zero experience with taking responsibility. I don’t think they even know how.

  16. Chelsea says:

    “Reconciliation” is the new “one year review”; a fake think they have dangling over Harry that he obviously doesnt care about. And even if the RRs were right that Harry speaking out doesnt make Brits thinks of the RF it makes the world outside of the UK think less of them and the main thing the RF has going for them outsode of giving the UK their national identity is their global soft power. What use will they be with a King Charles that is globally hated? I was actually watching an old doc from 2011 yesterday that spilled that the UK gov originally wanted to send Princess Amne to Jamiaca but that the Jamaican gov wanted Harry. Even though Harrt was preparing for a second tour of duty, being the Yes Man that he is, he agreed to go.

    And that’s one quote i dont think has gotten enough attention in the wake of the Me You Can’t See: Harry admitting that he’d always get sent places because the family knew that unlike SOME people he was a loyal Yes Man and would never say no to an assignment. Meghan was the same way. In a decade Kate has never done a royal tour in Africa but they had Meghan in Morocco when she was 7 months pregnant less than a year in after she’d already visited Ireland and done an Oceania tour. Would be interesting to know what visits and tours Bill and Kathy have refused to go on over the years. Have a feeling it will all leak out once Charles ascends.

    • Jais says:

      Hmm that’s interesting to think about. Did Kate ever do tours while she was pregnant or anywhere near 7 months? I have no idea actually?
      Also really appreciated how bryony Gordon’s quote used the word duty in it. That was very pointed and she’s got his back.

  17. Lizzie says:

    The reconciliation talk is just empty words to make it sound like the rf have some power over Harry.

    • Golly Gee says:

      They don’t understand that they need him more than he needs them, and he doesn’t need them at all. He has discovered that life is more fulfilling and happier without them. Plus he can survive financially without them. They really have nothing to offer which will draw him back.

  18. Merricat says:

    The world IS a better place for what Harry has done. There’s no better definition of nobility.

  19. TheFarmer'sWife says:

    The narrative that Harry is disrespecting his family by telling his personal truth, speaking about his own mental health issues, trying to stop an emotional trauma train for his family (aka: Meghan and their children), while at the same time trying to change the same for others is insulting and just plain wrong. However, the BRF is all about lighting a poop bag at the front door so you don’t notice who’s leaving through the back door! Is that you, Andrew? WillyLikesRoses? What’s the first rule for the BRF when facing any type of criticism: distract, deny, distract, deny, blame someone else (H & M), rinse and repeat. How many people expect their 12-year-old son to go out and comfort people about his own mother’s death, walk behind her coffin for miles and miles and then tell that same boy to “suck it up?” I’d say that Chuck needs to find his spine publically, and quick, but I don’t think that will ever happen.

  20. Izzy says:

    “Although one royal insider says for Harry “to continue to target your family leaves little room for reconciliation,”… bish, SIT DOWN. The family targeted him, and his wife, not the other way around.

  21. Athena says:

    I don’t understand why the British media and the BRF can’t let this go. They can’t move pass the unrelenting attack on Meghan and now Harry. What is the end game, other than the death of the Sussexes?
    Even with the world realizing what they’re up to they can’t seem to stop. Anyone one else at this point would realize they need to drop it. The BRF is destroying themselves in the process, eliminating the Sussexes will not bring them equilibrium.